This entire thread stems from a huge lack of understanding about the words used.

You're able to conquer something, and not retain ownership of it in the long-term. In the Alliance version of the Siege of Orgrimmar, the Alliance do conquer Orgrimmar. They rip through the defenses, and kill all in their path. For that week, in that instance, they have conquered Orgrimmar.

In terms of Lore and Story, they did conquer it while the Horde liberated it. Just look back through history, France has conquered the U.K, Germany has conquered France and the U.K. has conquered Germany. Yet here we all are, still in our own nations ...

This entire thread stems from a huge lack of understanding about the words used.

You're able to conquer something, and not retain ownership of it in the long-term. In the Alliance version of the Siege of Orgrimmar, the Alliance do conquer Orgrimmar. They rip through the defenses, and kill all in their path. For that week, in that instance, they have conquered Orgrimmar.

In terms of Lore and Story, they did conquer it while the Horde liberated it. Just look back through history, France has conquered the U.K, Germany has conquered France and the U.K. has conquered Germany. Yet here we all are, still in our own nations ...

Conquer =/= Ownership

The problem is they didn't do it alone, unlike the examples you mentioned. It was a combination of Horde and Alliance forces that siege Orgrimmar. The Horde is doing the same thing the Alliance is - why are they not "conquerors?" Further still, I don't think Alliance are ever in full control of Orgrimmar - a requirement for "conquering" something. The Horde with whom they fought alongside are there claiming Orgrimmar for themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if the Alliance tried stabbing them in the back, as they have the Blood Elves and Forsaken, but until you do that, you have "conquered" nothing. The citizens of the Horde are still present, still unopposed, and continue to lay claim to what is theirs: Orgrimmar. The Alliance has "conquered" nothing.

Out of curiosity, why? I've played since vanilla and always kind of assumed Horde were the bad guys while Alliance was the good guys. I don't read quests or lore or anything, but from a common sense standpoint it makes sense that Horde are the bad guys. Trolls, Orcs, Undead, not exactly good things.

Remember, when you assume you make an ass of yourself... Like you're doing right now

The problem is they didn't do it alone, unlike the examples you mentioned. It was a combination of Horde and Alliance forces that siege Orgrimmar. The Horde is doing the same thing the Alliance is - why are they not "conquerors?" Further still, I don't think Alliance are ever in full control of Orgrimmar - a requirement for "conquering" something. The Horde with whom they fought alongside are there claiming Orgrimmar for themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if the Alliance tried stabbing them in the back, as they have the Blood Elves and Forsaken, but until you do that, you have "conquered" nothing. The citizens of the Horde are still present, still unopposed, and continue to lay claim to what is theirs: Orgrimmar. The Alliance has "conquered" nothing.

While the Horde & Alliance are co-operating to deal with Garrosh, in a raiding format, excluding the Lore, it is the Alliance in their own battle, and the Horde in their own as well. Believe it or not, gameplay is more important then Lore.

The fact is, for the Alliance, and all the Alliance players that do this raid, they do conquer Orgrimmar.

The fact is, for the Horde, and all the Horde players that do this raid, they do liberate Orgrimmar.

Wait, so you quoted 1 antiquated meaning of the word? There's a reason they would have appeared near the bottom of the listings, and used middle age/16th century examples... In spite of the fact that every damn other meaning you will find makes no mention of holding land, simply closer to "victory". I guess well done for selective examples. -40 points for those examples being about as relevant as arguing we should use "thee" and "thou" in conversation these days.

The title is a bit over the top. It seems to me that "Conqueror of XXX" should be awarded by killing the faction leader, as well as killing X number of defending players while in that city.

Conqueror of Org, Conqueror of SW, Conqueror of Undercity, Conqueror of Ironforge, etc.

Get all of the respective Conquerors, and then you get Conqueror of the Horde vs Conqueror of the Alliance.

That would actually make perfect sense, and would make the title a suitable reward for what you have to do. People don't seem to get that it's not the title I take issue with, it's how little work you do to get it and the lack of appropriateness to the task at hand.